Global warming tipping points

[ding]

Less IR from the inside of my fridge too.
Unfortunately, the FLoT refutes your solar farms theory of global cooling.

Like I said before if you want to believe your fridge causes local cooling go for it but I don’t and it’s an inaccurate analog. It’s the FLoT that explains the localized cooling of solar farms, so no. As for waste heat there’s no change in waste heat from replacing fossil fuels with solar. So your FLoT argument is not applicable because it’s an incremental analysis. The energy balance of waste heat is unchanged.

 

[ding]

I didn't ask about the farms, I asked net. You know, the entire planet.

I couldn’t care less what you asked. I’m m not playing your game. You are playing my game.

I can’t think of a better way of ushering in the next glacial cycle than replacing fossil fuels with solar power in the middle of an ice age.

 

[ding]

Why didn't you ever claim widespread use of windpower would cool the planet?

Because I don’t believe it would

 

[ding]

What about the increased loss to wind?

And why are you ignoring the heat produced by that electricity?

Do you really not understand the First Law?

Lower infrared radiation at six solar farms is proof of the FLoT.

 

[Crick]

Lower infrared radiation at six solar farms is proof of the FLoT.

where

denotes the change in the internal energy of a closed system (for which heat or work through the system boundary are possible, but matter transfer is not possible),

denotes the quantity of energy supplied to the system as heat, and

denotes the amount of thermodynamic work done by the system on its surroundings.

Explain please, how lower IR at those six farms *PROVES* the First Law.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Like I said before if you want to believe your fridge causes local cooling go for it but I don’t and it’s an inaccurate analog. It’s the FLoT that explains the localized cooling of solar farms, so no. As for waste heat there’s no change in waste heat from replacing fossil fuels with solar. So your FLoT argument is not applicable because it’s an incremental analysis. The energy balance of waste heat is unchanged.

My fridge causes extreme localized cooling. Much more than your solar farms.

So your FLoT argument is not applicable

It applies to your claim that moving heat to a city could trigger glacial advances.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I couldn’t care less what you asked. I’m m not playing your game. You are playing my game.

I can’t think of a better way of ushering in the next glacial cycle than replacing fossil fuels with solar power in the middle of an ice age.

It's obvious you're not playing any more..........

I can’t think of a better way of ushering in the next glacial cycle than replacing fossil fuels with solar power in the middle of an ice age.

Excellent change to your original claim!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because I don’t believe it would

Why not? It would reduce fossil fuel waste heat.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lower infrared radiation at six solar farms is proof of the FLoT.

Right, because it's balanced by increased heat at the city.

 

[ReinyDays]

Lower infrared radiation was measured at six solar farms.

I didn't ask about the farms, I asked net. You know, the entire planet.

Keep in mind, these readings from ding's satellites are not being confirmed with thermometers in these farms ... what ever quantoid freakdom he's using doesn't show up in empirical record ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Keep in mind, these readings from ding's satellites are not being confirmed with thermometers in these farms ... what ever quantoid freakdom he's using doesn't show up in empirical record ...

Of the first 3 sources he cited for his claim, "I can't think of a better way to usher in the next glacial cycle than the widespread use of solar energy", two said it was a wash, due to added heat in urban areas and the third said it caused net heating of the planet due to lower albedo of the solar cells.

 

[ding]

Right, because it's balanced by increased heat at the city.

Incorrect. There is no change in waste heat from replacing fossil fuels with solar. So your FLoT argument is not applicable because it’s an incremental analysis. The energy balance of waste heat is unchanged.

 

[ding]

Why not? It would reduce fossil fuel waste heat.

And doesn’t reduce the number of photons producing heat by striking the surface of the planet. So wind does not produce a localized cooling effect like solar does.

 

[ding]

Keep in mind, these readings from ding's satellites are not being confirmed with thermometers in these farms ... what ever quantoid freakdom he's using doesn't show up in empirical record ...

MY satellites?

The definition of empirical is… “based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.”

Data acquired from MY satellites meets that definition.

 

[ding]

where

denotes the change in the internal energy of a closed system (for which heat or work through the system boundary are possible, but matter transfer is not possible),

denotes the quantity of energy supplied to the system as heat, and

denotes the amount of thermodynamic work done by the system on its surroundings.

Explain please, how lower IR at those six farms *PROVES* the First Law.

Because the first law is the conservation of energy. Photons cannot be converted into electricity and produce warming. Conservation of energy requires that only one can occur. Which is why there was an incremental cooling effect compared to no solar farms. The photons that were converted into electricity did not produce warming because they were converted into electricity instead.

 

[Crick]

Because the first law is the conservation of energy. Photons cannot be converted into electricity and produce warming. Conservation of energy requires that only one can occur. Which is why there was an incremental cooling effect compared to no solar farms. The photons that were converted into electricity did not produce warming because they were converted into electricity instead.

You've obviously never had a class in thermodynamics, have you. Conservation of energy does NOT require that only one can occur. The ICE engine in your car converts chemical potential energy into the kinetic energy of your car moving down the road. Does that mean none of that chemical energy can be converted to heat? What's the difference?

There are numerous things that could have caused cooling at those farms. A conclusion that such cooling is caused exclusively by the conversion of photons to electrons is simply not supportable. You've GROSSLY oversimplified what's taking place there.

 

[ding]

You've obviously never had a class in thermodynamics, have you. Conservation of energy does NOT require that only one can occur. The ICE engine in your car converts chemical potential energy into the kinetic energy of your car moving down the road. Does that mean none of that chemical energy can be converted to heat? What's the difference?

There are numerous things that could have caused cooling at those farms. A conclusion that such cooling is caused exclusively by the conversion of photons to electrons is simply not supportable. You've GROSSLY oversimplified what's taking place there.

I have taken thermo and that is exactly how the FLoT works. There’s no double dipping. Maybe if you understood how solar power works you wouldn’t be so confused.

 

[ding]

A conclusion that such cooling is caused exclusively by the conversion of photons to electrons is simply not supportable.

It was literally the conclusion of that study.

 

[ding]

Excellent change to your original claim!!!

Incorrect. You never understood my claim. And you still don’t.

 

[ding]

It's obvious you're not playing any more..........

I’m having a blast.